Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Tveten, 402 N.W.2d 551.

39 citing documents.

Original Jurisdiction Per Curiam Minn. 2020
Compare In re Tveten , –59 (Minn. 1987) (addressing a claim that a statute violated the general prohibition on special legislation) , – 51 (Minn. 1958) (same), –63 (Minn. 1964) (addressing a claim t hat a statute was a special law granting s
Dennis Lougee, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See In re Tveten , (“[A] duly enacted statute c arries with it a presumption in fav or of its constitutionality.”).
Finn v. Alliance Bank 838 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Finn v. Alliance Bank 838 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(discussing the MUFCA and noting that the question *604 of whether a transfer was made with “fair consideration” involves a question of fact).
State v. Reinke 702 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Reinke 702 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State 685 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State 685 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Masters v. Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 604 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Masters v. Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 604 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
A law is considered general if the classification “justifies a statute peculiar to the class in the matters addressed in the law.”
Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition v. Keefe 535 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1995
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 529 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1995
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 529 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1995
Statutes are presumptively constitutional, and should be declared unconstitutional "only when absolutely necessary."
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 510 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 510 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Haggerty, d at 366 (emphasis added); (“reasonable amount” requirement is satisfied by statutory language limiting exemption by objective criteria).
Larson v. Sando 508 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Larson v. Sando 508 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In addition, the Minnesota Constitution “generally prohibits special legislation when a general law can be made applicable.”
Elbers v. Growe 502 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Elbers v. Growe 502 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Application of Q Petroleum 498 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Application of Q Petroleum 498 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hamborg v. County of Hennepin 498 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hamborg v. County of Hennepin 498 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Midwest Motor Express, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local 120 494 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Midwest Motor Express, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local 120 494 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re the Welfare of D.L. 486 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1992
In Re the Welfare of D.L. 486 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1992
Medill v. State 477 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1991
Medill v. State 477 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1991
Evenson v. City of Saint Paul Board of Appeals 467 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Evenson v. City of Saint Paul Board of Appeals 467 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State of Ga. Ex Rel. Brooks v. Braswell 460 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State of Ga. Ex Rel. Brooks v. Braswell 460 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
K.E. v. Hoffman 452 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
K.E. v. Hoffman 452 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Blanch v. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District 449 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1989
Blanch v. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District 449 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1989
Although the park district contends that the park bill meets the requirements of the three-part test adopted in -59 (Minn.1987), and is, therefore, a general law which is not subject to the requirements of article 12, section 2, passing the rational basis test does not convert this special law into a general law.
In Re Haggerty 448 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 1989
In Re Haggerty 448 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 1989
The bankruptcy trustee objected, contending the Minnesota homestead exemption is unconstitutional under Minn. Const, art. 1, § 12, and because it has only area limits but no value or dollar limit.